You are here

Should Americans have to work in order to receive Medicaid benefits?

Background Information

Debate Question:This is what a short summary question would look like.

Recent changes to Medicaid allow states to require unemployed individuals of sound body and mind who do not have children to work in order to receive Medicaid benefits. If they can’t find a job, often the state will provide them with one or with training to qualify for one. Most of these programs would continue coverage for some time even if employment increased a person’s income above the eligibility limit.
One such program was recently approved for Kentucky, and eight other states currently have pending waiver requests at CMS.

in favor

against

It’s not fair to expect the government to pay for healthcare for someone who could contribute to the state’s economy if they chose to.

Zetema Panelist In Favor

+1 Good Point

Relatively few Medicaid beneficiaries could contribute substantially to the economy, and providing those few with jobs would require an expensive new bureaucracy, which taxpayers tend to dislike.

Zetema Panelist Against

Good Point
+1

Welfare reform in the 1990s similarly required able individuals to work if they could. Having the same standard for Medicaid benefits makes equal sense.

Zetema Panelist In Favor

+1 Good Point

Opinions are quite mixed about welfare reform, which had its own problems and negative consequences.

Zetema Panelist Against

Good Point
+1

The Congressional Budget Office stated that enrolling in Medicaid reduces a person’s “incentive to work,” and “creates a tax on additional earnings.” Work (especially full-time) has been linked to gains in an individual’s health and self-confidence.

Zetema Panelist In Favor

+1 Good Point

More than 70% of Medicaid beneficiaries are in working families already. Many of the others are unable to get or hold a job or have other valid reasons not to work.

Zetema Panelist Against

Good Point
+1

The work requirements in most proposals are very light, starting at 5 hours per week and rising to 20 hours after a year, with alternatives that include volunteering, job seeking, job training, education, and caring for a disabled relative.

Zetema Panelist In Favor

+1 Good Point

Most proposals project costs savings for the states that result from fewer covered lives, implying that the work requirement (among other features) would create a barrier to access.

Zetema Panelist Against

Good Point
+1

Work requirements will encourage individuals to get jobs, which is good for everyone, and will encourage states to provide training and support.

Zetema Panelist In Favor

+1 Good Point

States implementing programs like this aren't required to include money for job training or other employment services or childcare, so funding would need to come from Medicaid itself, other budget cuts, or new taxes.

Zetema Panelist Against

Good Point
+1

Disabled, elderly, adults with children, pregnant women, and others with good reasons not to work would be excluded from the employment requirement.

Zetema Panelist In Favor

+1 Good Point

The question is, who decides what a "good reason not to work" is? Does a diagnosed medical condition count? Also, Medicaid pays for half of all births in the US. Anything that could obstruct those mothers and children from getting care is unethical and could cost the system more in the long term.